EA forum ban blocks Dragon Age 2 player

EA has banned a forum user, resulting in blocking him from being able to play Dragon Age 2.

A player is unable to install Dragon Age following a temporary ban from the BioWare community forums.

User v_ware claims he was banned for asking if Bioware had 'sold their souls to the EA devil'. The ban then locked him out of the Bioware Social Network, blocking him from being able to play Dragon Age 2. A Bioware Social Network account is required to install copies of the game from the EA Store.

'Now I've got a dead game for 50 euros,' said v_ware. 'Pity.'

BioWare community representative Stanley Woo stated that the ban was in response to a breach of the EA community rules and was a result of another user pressing the report post button.

'Consider it an added incentive to follow the rules you say you're going to follow,' said Mr Woo.

A BioWare community ban can last as little as 24 hours, but may last more.

This incident is similar to Blizzard banning Starcraft 2 players for cheating on their singleplayer campaigns. The major difference here is that there is no online component to Dragon Age 2, other than downloadable content.

yea surely he was banned from the forum. How did they ban him from playing his game? is it because of the online DRM check?

just to add to this, surely everyone has a right of free speach, ok if you break the forum rules you get banned. But if I said the same thing to my mate, face-to-face, it sounds like they would ban me from playing the game too.

Just because there are such things and terms and conditions. This doesnt give the company the right to put what the hell they want into them. The terms and conditions still has to abide by the law. So you cant say "by signing these terms and conditions, you agree to give us all the money you will ever earn in your life"
Those would be illegal. And I am sure given the right backing, many of these EA/bioware terms and conditions can be challenged in court and I have no doubt some of them will be classed as illegal.

How many times does this have to happen before major companies who pay big fat PR salaries realise that no one gives a flying proverbial about some guy on a forum unless they are a paying customer who you then treat like a criminal

Originally Posted by GuinevereA little OTT for the comment, but it's not a permanent ban, so not exactly a biggie.

Its the principal of it dude. Why should they have the power to do that. If I buy a VW car, should VW be able to shut my engine off because I cut up their director at the lights? It would be cool...for them but its my car.

Originally Posted by _FanaticI'm sure they are covered up to their arses with small print allowing this but should that be allowed? Not for me - thats some seriously out of order control mechanism in place there.

It's right there in the EULA, but how that would stand up in a court is up for debate - they stand on notoriously shaky legal ground so it's likely that if anyone did challenge EA in court then they would get that ban overturned. It's unlikely anyone will bother doing this though, so in all likelihood they will get away with this shameful behaviour.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GuinevereA little OTT for the comment, but it's not a permanent ban, so not exactly a biggie.

That's not the point, and they've already stated that should the situation require it they can and will hand out permanent bans and deactivate accounts.

Consider it an added incentive to follow the rules you say you're going to follow

you know, this could make for a very interesting legal case.

The reason you get T&Cs before using software is that it's a requirement under US law.

It could be argued that if the forum contract, and the game contract are so intrinsically linked then that should be unequivocally stated in both, and if he's a minor then he may not have the capacity to interpret the two dense blocks of legalese required just to play a game.

I thought I'd check if it did actually state on the above on the bioware social network, and currently you can sign up without being provided with the contract you're signing up to - the ToS are presented in a shadowbox that just displays "Error loading content".

what a joke, seriously! what a ****ing joke... where the hell is the god damn regulations???????????
by letting EA commit such ****ed stupid bans cause the guy was right in what he was saying, ya know i bet there is more people out there who was thinking exaclty what he said!

Hate to say it tho guys, everyone who buys a EA game or anything to do with EA only fuels this pathetic sanctions!

The person concerned relogged as another user and admitted his comment was probably uncalled for and worth a FORUM ban. As a result the community started to post their suport when a bioware staff member jumped in - quoted the EULA/T&C's and locked the thread.

Imo it shouldn't be allowed, a forum ban is a forum ban and they should provide a mechanism to allow just that. Just because something is stated in a EULA or set of T's & C's doesn't necessarily make it fair or even legal and is open to challenge.

Originally Posted by HovisSmell like rubbish to me. You can play DA2 without logging into the online community gubbins. Sounds like somebody got butthurt on a forum and now wants the world to hear them cry about it.

These games companies make millions from us and when they get critisised they spit the dummy out the pram. EA are w4nk3rs anyway. They take you money with little support or interest once you have purchased. Fifa being another example.

Thank god eden games aren't part of EA then, i'd have gotten several lifetime bans by now over TDU2! And besides, isn't EA an American company bound by the same laws that give people the right to free speech? If the forum user is European ( he'd be dealing with EA Europe), and could probably get a case going by claiming that EA has breached his human rights to free speech and freedom of expression.

A little excessive perhaps, but if you will break the terms of your user account then you can't complain about a temp ban. And it is just a temp ban, no big whoop.
Logging into your Bioware a/c for installation seems reasonable & was employed in the first game & ME2 for recognising DLC. So I don't think any part of it should have come as a surprise.

Originally Posted by levellerI think it's been a long time coming that people should be held responsible for their actions both on forums and in games. People will soon learn to be polite.

You are kidding right? There's polite and then there's having the ability to question authority in whatever manner you choose to. Seriously. Getting a game banned for a minority for asking if Company A sold their souls to Company B? How was he rude in that? I think it was a very polite question and one that should be asked , but we're not privy to the details. But so what, the poster who said 'vote with your wallet' is more than right.
I concede the point about getting a temp forum bann for violating some OTT PC rules, but getting his game banned is beyond rightful action.
Whenever I hear of something like this I can't help but think of the great philosopher Zack de la Rocha who said, and I quote - "F*ck you, I won't do what you tell me" .

Originally Posted by logan'srunYou are kidding right? There's polite and then there's having the ability to question authority in whatever manner you choose to. Seriously. Getting a game banned for a minority for asking if Company A sold their souls to Company B? How was he rude in that? I think it was a very polite question and one that should be asked , but we're not privy to the details. But so what, the poster who said 'vote with your wallet' is more than right.
I concede the point about getting a temp forum bann for violating some OTT PC rules, but getting his game banned is beyond rightful action.
Whenever I hear of something like this I can't help but think of the great philosopher Zack de la Rocha who said, and I quote - "F*ck you, I won't do what you tell me" .

The guy goes on a forum run by the developer, calls the publisher (who effectively sets the rules as per smc's quote, rules which the poster has agreed to) the devil and you expect him not to get banned?

It's like going to a restaurant and calling your waitress a fat and ugly cow. Don't expect to get your food any time soon.

Additionally, the poster who said "vote with your wallet" is indeed right. The user who got banned should obviously not have bought the game in the first place if he feels that EA is figuratively the devil.

The guy goes on a forum run by the developer, calls the publisher (who effectively sets the rules as per smc's quote, rules which the poster has agreed to) the devil and you expect him not to get banned?

I don't know where the 'devil' (no pun intended!) has entered this argument? While it obvious originates from biblical terms, the phrase "Have you sold your soul to X" is very commonly used to represent any sort of stringent contract (or one where something is sacrificed for additional money).

It seems that in fact Bioware tricked the player into selling his soul to them!

Originally Posted by logan'srunYou are kidding right? There's polite and then there's having the ability to question authority in whatever manner you choose to. Seriously. Getting a game banned for a minority for asking if Company A sold their souls to Company B? How was he rude in that? I think it was a very polite question and one that should be asked , but we're not privy to the details. But so what, the poster who said 'vote with your wallet' is more than right. I concede the point about getting a temp forum bann for violating some OTT PC rules, but getting his game banned is beyond rightful action. Whenever I hear of something like this I can't help but think of the great philosopher Zack de la Rocha who said, and I quote - "F*ck you, I won't do what you tell me"

I've said before that any dev/pub who does exclusivity deals with MS or Sony as selling their souls, they are in my eyes. Gaming should be about enjoying games. Remember the days when a game was released on Spectrum 48k, C64, Amstrad, BBC, Electron [insert more here]. Gaming used to be about enjoying gaming, now they release games exclusively to make you buy a console you don't already have just to gain access to those exclusives. Anyway what that guy said and what I say are probably unrelated. Should I get banned for my opinion? No. Should he? Not sure, it does sound really harsh, maybe there is more to the guys rantings that we haven't seen.

I would really like to see more community managers take a tougher approach in certain gaming circles to rid the communities of annoying dicks that say things like "**** you crytek you fags, your games are ****" when Crytek upset a few people because they were forced to rush out the PC demo still containing console references. How the hell are the guys at Crytek supposed to feel, or any developer for that matter when they've put in 16 hour days working in an industry they love to put out the best artistic work they can and be slated like that?

Originally Posted by FelixTechI don't know where the 'devil' (no pun intended!) has entered this argument? While it obvious originates from biblical terms, the phrase "Have you sold your soul to X" is very commonly used to represent any sort of stringent contract (or one where something is sacrificed for additional money).

It seems that in fact Bioware tricked the player into selling his soul to them!

The phrase stems from a Faustian bargain (though Faust made this popular, it could well have been a popular phrase before then) where a person has sold their soul to the biblical devil. Replace the devil with something else and you're comparing the two. Using EA in the saying is implying that they are evil, sinister and wicked just like the devil of the original saying.

By the way new car sales will start to include a clause stating that the vehicle will become inoperable if you say anything bad about it. Likewise builders are implementing this into homes that will automatically burn to the ground if you say anything bad about the builder.

Originally Posted by SlothIt's like going to a restaurant and calling your waitress a fat and ugly cow. Don't expect to get your food any time soon.

There's a biiiiiiiiiig difference between openly insulting a waitress and posting an innocuous off the cuff remark on an Internet forum. Just sayin'.

If you start banning anyone who makes jokes on Internet forums from playing your games, then sooner or later you won't have any customers left at all. However, EA have wised up and realised that this set a dangerous precedent and the amount of media attention the story was getting them wasn't doing them any good, so they have now retracted the ban.

Originally Posted by smc8788There's a biiiiiiiiiig difference between openly insulting a waitress and posting an innocuous off the cuff remark on an Internet forum. Just sayin'.

If you start banning anyone who makes jokes on Internet forums from playing your games, then sooner or later you won't have any customers left at all. However, EA have wised up and realised that this set a dangerous precedent and the amount of media attention the story was getting them wasn't doing them any good, so they have now retracted the ban.

There's also a big difference between any ol' forum and BioWare community forums. They key being, you insult BioWare or their publishers on the BioWare community forums and they're a whole lot more likely to not take kindly to it. Just like saying Bit-Tech sold their souls to the Dennis Publishing devil likely wouldn't go over too smoothly here, or insulting your waitress in her place of business.

Additionally, it's not a ban from the game for a forum comment, it's a ban from the forum for a forum comment which broke forum rules and was reported. The forum account is then required to play the game, but it's conjecture to say that the ban was done in order to prevent the player from playing the game without EA or BioWare filling in that link. The quote in Bit's article mentions that being blocked from the game is extra incentive to not get forum banned, but doesn't say being banned from the game is a direct punishment.

Sounds like the answer to the guys original question on the forum was a clear yes. EA has this reputation for a reason and developers when they are bought by EA are basically selling out on all their customers too. They don't even treat their staff very well; why would you want to help a company like that be successful?

Random question here, assuming people here have Dragon Age 2, as I do, can anybody vouch for needing your forum login at any point to play the game? It had nothing to do with unlocking it for me. I put my Bioware pass and whatnot into the game -after- I'd installed it and was set to play it, but I didn't need to, I could have gone without it.

Where has this story even come from? Some guy complaining on the Internet? Since when does that make something true? I've seen the same story pop up on other sites as well, with not so much of a hint of evidence to back up the claim. Some guy with no name on the Internet says X, Y and Z, and suddenly Bioware are the evil empire? Is that how easy it's gotten to perform smear a company these days?

If somebody can replicate this ban = no game phenomenon then fair enough, it's news. Until then it just looks like a lot of gullible people looking for a reason to rage.

Originally Posted by HovisRandom question here, assuming people here have Dragon Age 2, as I do, can anybody vouch for needing your forum login at any point to play the game? It had nothing to do with unlocking it for me. I put my Bioware pass and whatnot into the game -after- I'd installed it and was set to play it, but I didn't need to, I could have gone without it.

Where has this story even come from? Some guy complaining on the Internet? Since when does that make something true? I've seen the same story pop up on other sites as well, with not so much of a hint of evidence to back up the claim. Some guy with no name on the Internet says X, Y and Z, and suddenly Bioware are the evil empire? Is that how easy it's gotten to perform smear a company these days?

If somebody can replicate this ban = no game phenomenon then fair enough, it's news. Until then it just looks like a lot of gullible people looking for a reason to rage.

Well, the statement from EA pretty much confirms that he's not just making it up:

Quote:

Unfortunately, there was an error in the system that accidentally suspended your entire EA account. Immediately upon learning of the glitch, we have restored the entire account and apologize for the inconvenience this may have caused while accessing other areas of the EA service.

As for the activation thing I'm not too sure, but it's my understanding that he bought it from the EA Store under that account.

Originally Posted by SlothAdditionally, it's not a ban from the game for a forum comment, it's a ban from the forum for a forum comment which broke forum rules and was reported. The forum account is then required to play the game, but it's conjecture to say that the ban was done in order to prevent the player from playing the game without EA or BioWare filling in that link. The quote in Bit's article mentions that being blocked from the game is extra incentive to not get forum banned, but doesn't say being banned from the game is a direct punishment.

By that logic then sentencing someone to sit in an electric chair isn't a death sentence, it's just that they happen not to be able to withstand 10,000 Volts for very long. I think you'll find (A→B)∧(B→C) → (A→C)

It's NOT a freedom of speech issue , a forum is private and you can not say just anything you like on one .. you agree to abide by the rules or your out ... but having ANYTHING to do with your ability to play a legally purchased and owned game is not acceptable and will only change when enough people say it's not

Originally Posted by SlothAdditionally, it's not a ban from the game for a forum comment, it's a ban from the forum for a forum comment which broke forum rules and was reported. The forum account is then required to play the game, but it's conjecture to say that the ban was done in order to prevent the player from playing the game without EA or BioWare filling in that link. The quote in Bit's article mentions that being blocked from the game is extra incentive to not get forum banned, but doesn't say being banned from the game is a direct punishment.

By that logic then sentencing someone to sit in an electric chair isn't a death sentence, it's just that they happen not to be able to withstand 10,000 Volts for very long. I think you'll find (A→B)∧(B→C) → (A→C)

for C&C3 people were banned from the EA forums for posting about EA being **** at making patches (which they truly are!!), and then couldn't play online either. The community managers / mods who were responsible for doing so were reprimanded heavily. Basically a lot of the mods are part time or volunteers or something and just see it as their kingdom and don't actually answer to a higher power, because the higher powers are too busy counting their money and/or making games and/or speaking to journalists. The executive team does not spend a lot of time worrying about community matters I don't think. In the same way the writers on bit-tech will probably spend more time reviewing hardware / games and getting good scoops than poring over every moderator decision.

So if you asked a bioware or EA executive about it, they'd probably swear under their breath, try and cover it up as a misunderstanding or something, while having serious words with the ****tards who ban people from games under their own authority. It's not a one off.

Looks like Bioware has sold their souls, too. I would never buy a game from a company that would render goods unuseable I have paid good money for being able to use because of a secondary incident in a forum. Maybe Dreaming who posted above has the right clue though. I have experienced quite a few mods who are volunteers who were rather young and abused their power for overly restrictive handling of paying customers discussing game bugs and were very easily offended in their tremendous sense of personal dignity when they got criticized for threating people to close their threads or dealing forum users in an unfair manner. As a consequence I shun certain game publishers and developers.

This just happened to me today but I did not call ea the devil, it said this Your Electronic Arts Online account has suspended for 72 hours for violating the Terms of Service for Electronic Arts Online.

Originally Posted by karx11erxI have experienced quite a few mods who are volunteers who were rather young and abused their power for overly restrictive handling of paying customers discussing game bugs and were very easily offended in their tremendous sense of personal dignity when they got criticized for threating people to close their threads or dealing forum users in an unfair manner.

Itâs not like what he said was offensive. Merely an opinion. Since when are huge companies so delicate and sensitive?? Surely itâs a bit much, a company like this, meeting out punishment on an individual for such a little thing. As For Mr Woo's comment, its very easy to resent your customers, but displaying such apathy and adding to the hurt with pure arrogance could be quite damaging to his business, particularly as EA already had this customers cash safely in their pocket, they would do well to remember who puts the food on their table!

Originally Posted by jimmyjjTo remove his ability to use the product he paid for is a disgrace and questionable in terms of its legality.

In a US court it would probably be upheld given the support previously given to EULA terms and conditions in Vernor vs Autodesk.

Ultimately though it is his fault for buying a product that requires online activation in the first place. All such systems, be they from EA, Securom, Ubisoft or Valve, place consumers at the mercy of the publisher and there are examples aplenty of people losing access to purchases due to their accounts being suspended.

I decided to boycott Dragon Age 2 the instant I heard about its online activation requirement and this event should simply confirm the risks involved for anyone else considering it.